Just change the team name to that of the pro football team from D.C. If there’s still a moral issue tell thoes worrying about it to take it up with the NFL.

Really though, the arguments about the ridiculousness of the name fight aside, the Sioux are a defeated people. They’re no longer the Fighting Sioux. They’re the Defeated Sioux. It’s not really a good team name when you think about it. Why would a team, purportedly a team that wants to win, pick losers for their name?

If you want to use the name Sioux license it from the tribe.

Sioux is not their real tribal name. That name was given to them by the French fur traders.

The name “Sioux” is an abbreviated form of Nadouessioux borrowed into French Canadian from Nadoüessioüak from the early Odawa exonym: naadowesiwag “Sioux”.[6] It was first used by Jean Nicolet in 1640.[3] The Proto-Algonquian form *na·towe·wa, meaning “Northern Iroquoian”, has reflexes in several daughter languages that refer to a small rattlesnake (massasauga, Sistrurus).[7] This information was interpreted by some that the Ottawa borrowing was an insult. However, this Proto-Algonquian term most likely was ultimately derived from a form *-a·towe·, meaning simply “speak foreign language”,[6] which was later extended in meaning in some Algonquian languages to refer to the massasauga. Thus, contrary to many accounts, the old Odawa word naadowesiwag did not equate the Sioux with snakes. This is not confirmed though, since usage over the previous decades has led to this term having negative connotations to those tribes to which it refers. This would explain why many tribes have rejected this term when referring to themselves.

Some of the tribes have formally or informally adopted traditional names: the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is also known as the Sicangu Oyate, and the Oglala often use the name Oglala Lakota Oyate, rather than the English “Oglala Sioux Tribe” or OST. (The alternative English spelling of Ogallala is considered improper).[3]

[

That kind of stuff is just as stupid as the Herald story.

Hey Headward,

As an Indian (I hate the PC term Native American…one of my parents is white and they were born and raised here, just as native of an American as my other parent), there are a couple of myths and misconceptions about Indians:

1) We Indians have to pay all the federal taxes that everyone else in the US has to pay. We don’t pay state taxes on the reservations because we don’t fall under state jurisdiction (which should prevent us from voting for state offices like governor, but that’s just what I think.) Some reservations, however, have had the state collect gas taxes ON THE RES, which is shouldn’t be able to do. Can Minnesota collect gas taxes in North Dakota? No, of course not. ND even passed a law a couple of years ago to prohibit giving money it illegally collected on the res back to the tribes if it was collected more than just a few years back. Not exactly ethical (or likely legally enforceable…I’m sure some lawsuits will ensue.)

2) We don’t get “free income.” We get whatever income our jobs provide us. Those that don’t work are eligible for the same welfare programs that poor white people are eligible for. Some tribes get some per capita distributions of profits from their casinos, but that’s all based on the free market (you white folks wasting your money on the slots, etc.) Any state can change its laws and allow gambling to try to get the same kinds of funds. Some tribes get some per capita distributions of treaty funds, but that is based on legally binding agreements made between the tribe and the US government over a hundred years ago. I’m sure none of us want the US to break the treaties it signed, right? Otherwise, who would want to sign a treaty with a country that can’t be trusted to keep its deals?

3) We don’t get free education. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, nearly all of us get “tuition waivers” from UND (and I suspect the other state colleges as well) that aren’t available to white students. As far as the rest of the financial aid we get, it is the same as everyone else. ADDITIONALLY, and this is a big additionally, there are programs like INMED, etc., that have been set up at UND (and likely the other state colleges) that are for Indians (I don’t believe non-Indians can enroll in them). So, while education isn’t free, we do get some bennies not available to whites.

4) Remarks like using the Hotchkiss as a mascot are asinine. It wasn’t employed at Little Bighorn in 1876 (a somewhat fair fight), but instead was used at Wounded Knee in 1890 to gun down women, children and old men. It’s remarks like this that give the anti-nickname zealots ammunition.

Getting rid of the nickname (a nickname I support, btw) isn’t going to rid the world of racism. It would sure make it easier for the pro-nickname side, however, if all the racists would keep their ignorant traps shut when they make uneducated and prejudicial slurs. Many of the anti-nickname crowd claim they went that way because of all the vile racist crap they saw being spewed from those opposed to getting rid of the nickname. It’s unfair, because those same racists aren’t going to suddenly become all sunshine and unicorns if the nickname is ousted, in fact they’ll likely get worse.

Pro-nickname folks (of whom I’m one) unfortunately have other pro-nickname racists as our own worse enemy.

Perhaps USEFUL IDIOTS is more fitting. Lenin always liked to have a few around- maybe Jacobs does too.

4.) Remarks like using the Hotchkiss as a mascot are asinine. It wasn’t employed at Little Bighorn in 1876 (a somewhat fair fight), but instead was used at Wounded Knee in 1890 to gun down women, children and old men. It’s remarks like this that give the anti-nickname zealots ammunition.

That is true and we don’t need to give them anymore ammunition.

The Whistler – We’ve always taken pride in the name.

I understand that and I agree with your argument’s principles. My question is: what is the point? Life is short. Move on. Pick a proud people and winners next time.

*shrugs*

That’s actually what this vote is about. Whether or not we have permission to use the name anymore.

And we’ll abide by that.

But this story isn’t about that. It’s about the Grand Forks Herald smearing someone who’s no longer around to defend his name.

Why would a team, purportedly a team that wants to win, pick losers for their name?

We’ve always taken pride in the name.

You do similar stuff all the time.

I don’t, actually. But whatever. You don’t like the facts, so you just attack the messenger.